I didn't quite get it either. Are Ron and I the grimy kids, or the
fathers in this story? And if so, would Ron be the kind-hearted father?
I don't recall ever striking my kids like the first father, so I know it
doesn't apply to me, however I also wasn't so neglectful as he was to
just say a
-Original Message-
From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 11:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ZION] A few more representative quotes...
--Quoting President Hinckley --
There are those who would have us believe in the
validity of what they
choose to
It's not about either of you. You two were having a
discussion about the difference between the law of Christ and the law
of Moses. Ron's take seemed to be that the focus with Christ's plan
was in forgiveness and repentance. Your take seemed to focus on the
whole punishment aspect of the
At 05:24 PM 3/22/2004, Ron Scott wrote in response to Jim Cobabe:
Equal protection is already afforded in our laws, for
legitimate and
traditional marriage. Nothing in the constitution
envisions the
degraded definition of marriage that encompasses any
particular union
of convenience, affection,
I believe President Hinkley's remarks on this issue succinctly and
precisely outline the present direction of church policy on the marriage
controversy. The church is actively pursuing every means to defend
traditional marriage, including representation in the courts and support
for
-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
At 05:24 PM 3/22/2004, Ron Scott wrote in response to
Jim Cobabe:
Equal protection is already afforded in our laws, for
If, as BYU Professor Richard Wilkins states, we need a Marriage Amendment
because activist judges have misinterpreted the Constitution (See the URL
immediately below), then why not simply limit their jurisdiction as
outlined in Article III, Section 2?
-Original Message-
From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
I believe President Hinkley's remarks on this issue
succinctly and
precisely outline the present direction of church
policy
At 08:46 AM 3/23/2004, you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
I believe President Hinkley's remarks on this issue
succinctly and
precisely outline the
When Richard Wilkins lays out a real constitutional argument I
will be first in line to read it. So far, he resorts to bombast
and preaching rather than jurisprudence.
The local option you propose does have some major practical
complications (as we have discussed), ones that could be sorted
out
At 08:29 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote:
Obviously these thoughtful judges are simply
wrong--in light of the
Church's teachings on this subject, as well documented by Jim.
Must I point out to you, of all people, that church teachings are
not part of the U.S. Constitution, which is the guide that
First, the father should be the same individual for both children. The
difference being one child is willing to live a higher law, with the
other needing to be prodded along.
I didn't focus on the Law of Moses. I focused on eternal laws of God.
You'll note that I not only quoted from the Old
Just because a judge is an activist judge, does not make him a
thoughtful one. Nor does it make him right. Nor does it mean he is
following the Constitution. If they were to gage Constitutionality by
the standard set by our Founding Fathers, they would have no question on
the issue of
But only if the current Constitutional powers are obeyed and honored.
When we have mayors in San Francisco and elsewhere giving out marriage
certificates in defiance of the law, then what piece of paper is there
that can establish the law? And when judges overstep their proper role
and
-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 11:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
At 08:29 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote:
Obviously these thoughtful judges are simply
wrong--in light of the
Church's
-Original Message-
From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 11:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
Just because a judge is an activist judge, does not make him a
thoughtful one.
I'm growing weary of the tiresome assumption that
All---
I received a suspicious email earlier today purporting to be from my own
domain at firstnephi.com.
As FYI, you should never EVER receive anything from me or from my
family's web site that would ask you to install software, give out
passwords, etc. In this instance, it appears
Steven Montgomery wrote:
If, as BYU Professor Richard Wilkins states, we need a Marriage Amendment
because activist judges have misinterpreted the Constitution (See the URL
immediately below), then why not simply limit their jurisdiction as
outlined in Article III, Section 2?
RB Scott wrote:
I'm growing weary of the tiresome assumption that activist
judge is a negative description. By definition any appellate
judge worth his gavel is an activist judge because he is often
asked to interpret constitutional law. I daresay that one man's
activist judge is another's strict
-Original Message-
From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution
Steven Montgomery wrote:
If, as BYU Professor Richard Wilkins states, we need a
Marriage Amendment
because
RB Scott wrote:
I do not support extramarital sex of
any kind.
What about sex within marriage if marriage is redefined to permit a man to
marry his German Shepherd or his boy friend? --JWR
//
/// ZION LIST CHARTER:
RB Scott wrote:
I agree, John. Notice that yesterday the proponents of the
amendment expanded language of the proposed amendment to give
states the right to adopt same sex union legislation and even
Orrin Hatch was dithering.
Where can I read about this? --JWR
-Original Message-
From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
RB Scott wrote:
I do not support extramarital sex of
any kind.
What about sex within marriage if marriage is
-Original Message-
From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ZION] Activist Judges
RB Scott wrote:
I'm growing weary of the tiresome assumption that activist
judge is a negative description. By definition any
Any newspaper in America, I presume. It was front page of the
Globe today. I assume the NYT as well, although I have not yet
read the Times today.
RBS
-Original Message-
From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
RB Scott wrote:
It would *seem* to you, perhaps. It doesn't *seem* so to me. I DO
NOT support same sex marriage, but my methods for opposing it do
not include (at this point) supporting a constitutional amendment
defining **marriage.**
Tell us more about your methods for opposing same-sex
-Original Message-
From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
RB Scott wrote:
It would *seem* to you, perhaps. It doesn't *seem* so
to me. I DO
NOT support same sex marriage, but
RB Scott wrote:
Tell us more about your methods for opposing same-sex
marriage. --JWR
I have done this before. I support the proposition that the state
should get out of sanctioning marriages altogether and should,
therefore ( as I noted in an earlier post today) draft
legislation that carefully
At 09:45 AM 3/23/2004, you wrote:
But only if the current Constitutional powers are obeyed and honored.
When we have mayors in San Francisco and elsewhere giving out marriage
certificates in defiance of the law, then what piece of paper is there
that can establish the law? And when judges overstep
-Original Message-
From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
RB Scott wrote:
Tell us more about your methods for opposing same-sex
marriage. --JWR
I have done this before. I
At 10:08 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
But I thought you did support same sex civil unions. Am I
wrong?
Support is
At 10:08 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote:
I will continue to think...and will appreciate receiving
relevant, thoughtful comments from any of you.
RBS
I don't think that you will have any problem with a dearth of commentary
and opinion here on ZION. ;-)
--
Steven Montgomery
The most important
-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
At 09:45 AM 3/23/2004, you wrote:
But only if the current Constitutional powers are
obeyed and honored.
When we have mayors in
At 11:38 AM 3/23/2004, you wrote:
Steven Montgomery wrote:
If, as BYU Professor Richard Wilkins states, we need a Marriage Amendment
because activist judges have misinterpreted the Constitution (See the URL
immediately below), then why not simply limit their jurisdiction as
outlined in Article
-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
SNIP
--RON--
2) As I read the constitution, the tax codes (for example) must
ensure equal treatment under law for all
-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
At 10:08 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote:
I will continue to think...and will appreciate receiving
relevant,
At 02:05 PM 3/23/2004, you wrote:
Tell us how you feel about the amendment now that we know there's
a move afoot to change the language? grin What's Wilkins
reaction to same? This thing is beginning to feel like an
election year stunt gone haywire.
RBS
The marriage amendment is doomed to failure.
Okay, how about 200+ years of laws being interpreted a certain way, only
to have judges granting new rights to certain minority groups. There
are a lot of black ministers meeting in Atlanta today to fight the gay
marriage acts in Georgia. They are demanding that gays not equate their
movement
At 07:22 PM 4/22/2004, you wrote:
I went with my 11 year old on a school choir trip today to Calgary for a
choral festival performance.
rest deleted
Hey Tom. Check the time and date on your computer. Your last email on ZION
was dated 4/22/2004 at 7:22PM grin. It sure makes a mess out of my email
So are you or are you not saying that bestiality is okay? If the state
gets out of the marriage business and some strange religion chooses to
marry off its virgins to animals, is that then something that should be
lawful, simply because the government isn't into marriage issues?
I see an
So, in effect, you are not opposing anything. You are simply giving up
on the fight against moral crimes against society.
On the same note then, why do we not have the state get out of managing
crimes altogether. Let it all be resolved in the civilian courts.
Someone murdered? Why have
Black ministers should speak their minds. However, as the
discussion was about activist judges I will point out that
major civil rights decisions were written by activist judges.
The nation is the better for their activity. I'll stick by my
assertion that activist goes with the assignment to the
I think we should go for both of them. If one fails, we have an
alternative method. As it is, there probably will not be a perfect
solution, but in this case some solution may be better than allowing SSM
from proliferating.
Gary Smith
Steven Montgomery wrote:
At 02:05 PM 3/23/2004, you
Gary:
It's not easy to annoy me, but you're getting close.
I wish you'd take greater care in reading my posts, and assessing
the reality of the current situation before shooting off
half-baked accusations.
Think what you may. Have a pleasant night.
Ron
-Original Message-
From:
Are you related to Red Davis?
-Original Message-
From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
So are you or are you not saying that bestiality is
okay? If the state
gets out of the
-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
At 02:05 PM 3/23/2004, you wrote:
Tell us how you feel about the amendment now that we
know there's
a move afoot to change the
No, but I know the guy. Don't agree with him on everything.
But all I can say is I cannot judge you, Ron. Only your words. And if
you feel offended by my judging of your words, then either I am truly
misunderstanding them (as are others, I might add), you are failing at
putting your true
First, the father should be the same individual for both children. The
difference being one child is willing to live a higher law, with the
other needing to be prodded along.
Ok. I agree. Although my guess is that that will make the story a
little more bewildering.
I didn't focus on the Law of
2 Nephi 23:9
9 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel
both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land
desolate; and he shall destroy the sinners
thereof out of it.
2 Nephi 23:11
11 And I will punish the world for evil, and
the wicked for their iniquity; I will cause the
arrogancy of
I do not know if this idea has any merit, but wanted to get your opinions.
granted, it may not hold water with some of our faith, and probably less
water with those who are not of our persuasion or are secular in their
orientation.
perhaps we are taking the wrong approach in determining what is
Gary:
I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth. I don't
appreciate be asked absurd questions that have no bearing
whatsoever on the issues we're discussing. And, I get annoyed
when you assume I believe one way when the post to which you're
responding clearly suggests just the opposite.
If
In my view, the restoration has a poor record of success when it comes
to testing the laws of the land in court. For more than 150 years it
has been a dismal and discouraging effort for the saints of God to
importune the courts for redress. In legal matters regarding everything
from trivial
Hello, Jim
thanks for your response. evidently age and education have not sharpened my
writing skills very much.
everything you stated was/is true-- historically, the Church has not fared
well in the hands of the U.S. legal system.
However, I was asking the opposite question:
would it be
Does anyone know how I can find an online copy of Scalia's dissenting
opinion in Lawrence v. Texas? I've Googled, and all I can find are news
stories, not the actual dissenting opinion. --JWR
//
/// ZION LIST
John W. Redelfs wrote:
Does anyone know how I can find an online copy of Scalia's dissenting
opinion in Lawrence v. Texas? I've Googled, and all I can find are news
stories, not the actual dissenting opinion. --JWR
Nevermind. I found it. Sorry to bother you. --JWR
RB Scott wrote:
To reiterate: not once have I written that I favor gay marriage,
yet you insist that I do. Not once have I written that I condone
homosexual activities, yet you assert that I do.
I think I see a possible source of misunderstanding here, Ron. Instead of
saying, ...not once have a
Here's the court's url
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01slipopinion.html
-Original Message-
From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ZION] Scalia and Lawrence v. Texas
Does anyone know how I can find
Bob, I do see your point about constitutionality. It is an interesting
idea. If I understand correctly, you are imagining what would result if
we begin from an axiomatic assumption that church doctrines reflect the
true constitutional ideal, and we might use this standard for judging
I sing (soprano, mostly, but can sing alto when needed) and play piano.
I'm not the greatest at piano but, with practice, I can play passably
enough to be the pianist in sacrament meeting when our regular
pianist/organist is out of of town. I used to take clarinet lessons, but
only because my
Jim-- thank you for articulating what I was trying to say. perhaps if I
hang out more with the members of Zion, some of that may rub off on me.
Bob Taylor
Bob, I do see your point about constitutionality. It is an interesting
idea. If I understand correctly, you are imagining what would
60 matches
Mail list logo
